Please tell me Rahm Emmanuel hates Israel.

Heh.
Are we to make this judgment by what he says, or what he does, or by his family tree?

I ask because they don't seem to mesh very well.

As for what to do about Lieberman-while I think a lot of democrats want to see him punished, I think it is wiser to save the punishment and let bygones be bygones. The democrats may think they won't need him, and it might feel good to punish him, but they probably would do better politically to forget about it. Lieberman on their side probably helps them more...

I see your point jm, but I have to disagree. The thing is, it is not a matter of punishment, it is a matter of trust. Lieberman can not be trusted, and one does not give a man like that a position of power like the chair on a gov't oversight comittee. Pushing him out, what do they lose? They go from 56/44 to 55/45... Sure it puts them one more vote from 60, but they could never count on his vote anyway, and the DEMs were always going to have to work with the GOP in the Senate.

If he does not take the deal HR has offered, they are better off without him.

As for what to do about Lieberman-while I think a lot of democrats want to see him punished, I think it is wiser to save the punishment and let bygones be bygones. The democrats may think they won't need him, and it might feel good to punish him, but they probably would do better politically to forget about it. Lieberman on their side probably helps them more than if they drive him to caucus with the GOP-and Lieberman really isn't much of a fit with the GOP, but the GOP would probably take him.

I think Chambliss is facing a run-off because the Libertarian Allen Buckley pulled votes from him. Jim Martin most likely isn't going to win a run-off.

agreed hc, but it would not have been even close with out the large black turnout for Obama.

Also, I would not assume Chambliss was going to get those Libertarian votes. As is, my bet is they will stay home in a runoff... Which of course will leave Chambliss with over 50%. (not to mention that a lot of blacks will stay home too)

I certainly think that's true of Reid who is charged with leading the Democratic caucus in the Senate. It's not necessarily true of Obama if he wants to forge his own center-left majority as many seem to want or predict.

True on the 1st part PD, but not so much on the 2nd. Obama has already forged a "center-left majority" by bringing in at least 5 more DEM Senators, and 20(?) more DEM Reps. No, he did not do this all on his own, but he certainly helped. Would Kay Hagan have won in NC without him? Would Saxby Chambliss be facing a run off with out Obama? Would Coleman be hanging on by his fingernails without Obama?

The job for Obama now is to hold them all together (thru Reid and Pelosi) and poach off what REP votes he can get to move things thru the Senate. He can't do that if they are all free to stab him in the back (as L has done) whenever they want.

Obama is a smart, savvy, and tough politician who is playing for keeps. Lieberman is finding that out the hard way.

If he is going to get even half of what he wants done, he has to be able to enforce some kind of party discipline.

I certainly think that's true of Reid who is charged with leading the Democratic caucus in the Senate. It's not necessarily true of Obama if he wants to forge his own center-left majority as many seem to want or predict.

Proof of the Bi-partisan approach preached by the Democrat party!

I think you have a child's (or David Broder's) view of what bi-partisanship is. Bi-partisanship is working together on issues and finding common ground and requires some give and take on both sides. Lieberman, apparently, promised that he would take by campaigning for his long-time friend but give by not demonizing Obama, and the Democrats would like wise allow him to go against their caucas without taking away his assignments. Instead, Lieberman went back on his word by campaigning for unrelated races for the GOP, calling Obama a Marxist and an Anti-Semite. He did this.

This doesn't preclude them of working with Lieberman, but he can't have control of the Democrat agenda just so they can fulfill Republican's notion of "bi-partisanship" that we've seen so effectively used by Rove and Bush where Democrats roll over and take it.

Seems like the first test of Obama's inclusiveness. Does anybody doubt that Reid has felt out Obama's views on this?

PD:

Of course Obama has been consulted on this. I suspect that as the nominative leader of the DEM party, he is in fact behind it. If he is going to get even half of what he wants done, he has to be able to enforce some kind of party discipline. He will use carrots as well as sticks, but this is a situation that clearly calls for the stick.

He’s every Republicans’ favorite Democrat but, if he switched parties, he’d soon be about as beloved as Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe, widely dismissed as a RINO.

James, the problem is that by the standards of those holding the whip hand in the party so are you. I don't see any way that libertarian Republicans, not joiners by temperament and conviction, will gain any real influence in the party. They're just not willing to do the spade work.